Strategies for approaching problems may em-
phasize various combinations of vision, action, logic
or emotion & particular emphasis on one of these
cognitive strategies can produce a general think-
ing style at the level of a group or culture. Vision,
action, logic and emotion are more general expres-
sions of the elements ofa particularcognitive strat-
egy: ie, visualization, movement, verbalization
and feeling. Thinking style is akin to the NLP
notion of "primary" or "most valued" representa-
tional system.
Sununary of Key Meta Program Patterns
1. Approach To Problems
a. Towards the Positive
b. Away From the Negative
2. Time Frame
a. Short Term-Long Term
b. Past-Present-Future
3. Chunk Size
a. Large Chunks-Generslities
b. Small Chunks-Details
4. Locus of Control
a. Internal or ‘Self Reference-Proactive
b. External or ‘Other’ Reference-Reactive
5. Mode of Comparison
a. Match (Simmlanties)-Consensus
b. Mismatch (Dijfferewes)-Confrontation
6. Approach to Problem Solving
a. Task (Achievernent)
1) Choices—-Goals
2) Procedures—Opera tions
b, Relationship (Power; Affiliation )
1) Self-Wy, 1, Me
2) Other-You, His, Their
3) Context-We TheCompany, The Market
7. Thinking Style
a. Vision
b. Action
c. Logic
d. Emotion
A person's Hierarchy of Criteria and Logical
Level of focus can also be considered as Meta Pro-
gram features. A Hierarchy of Criteria is essen-
tially the order of priorities that a person applies
to an outcome or problem. Hierarchies of criteria
relate to the degree of importance or meaning which
people attach to various actions and experiences.
Criteria are essentially values that provide the
motives for action; such as: achievement, power,
survival, efficiency, consensus, profit, growth, pro-
ductivity, affiliation, quality, ecology, etc. Criteria
suchas thesecan determineand reveals lot about
other Meta Program patterns. A person who has
“achievement" at the top of his or her Hierarchy of
Criteria, for instance, is much more likely to be
task oriented than a person who most highly val-
ues “affiliation.” Likewise, a person who focuses
on" power” is more likely to be proactive and inter.
nally referenced than a person who emphasizes
“consensus”; and so on.
Logical Level of focus relates to where a person or
group typically tends to place their attention while
problem solving orplanning a path toa desired state.
Emphasis may be placed on either: environment—
Whee, Wher; behaviors —What;ea pa bilities —H ow;
beliefs and values—Why, identity—Who, or the
system—Who else and ForWhom,
The Logical Level of focus determines the scope
of activity to which other Meta Program patterns
apply. Avoiding something in the environment, is
different than attempting to avoid being some
thing at the identity level. Mismatching behav-
iors is different than mismatching beliefs and
values; and so on. It is also possible to avoid,
mismatch or have an internal reference at one
level, but to approach, match or have an external
reference at another level. Factoring in the Logi-
cal Levels of focus often helps to sort out seeming
discrepancies or paradoxes related to identifying
the basic Meta Program patterns (one can be "ap-
proaching" something at one level, and "avoiding"
something at another level, for instance).
Meta Program Clusters and Group Process
Different problem solving styles and approaches
are characterized by different clusters and se
quences of Meta Program patterns in various ra-
tios. One person's approach might involve an 80%
focus on relationship and 20% focus on task, and
70% emphasis on long-term versus 30% short-term
considerations. Someone else may emphasize the
taskas 90% of the focus and think mostly in terms
of short-term consequences.
Thinking Style Dreamer
Level of Feces What
Representational Vision
reference
Approach Toward
Time Frame Long-Term
Time Orientation Fue
Reference Internal - Self
Mode of Comparison Match
Realist Critic
Way
Action. Logic
Toward Away
Short-Term. Long!Short-Term
Present PasttPurwe
External - Environment External - Others
Match Mismatch
Different Clusters of Meta Program Patterns Combine to Form Different Thinking Styles
Thedifferent clusters of Meta Program patterns
clearly cover different areas of a problem space. In
this respect, there are no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ Meta
Programs. Rather, their effectiveness in connec
tion with problem solving relates to the ability to
apply them to cover the space necessary to ad-
equately deal with a problem or reach a goal. The
different phases of the Disney Imagineering Strat-
ecy (Dreamer, Realist and Critic), for example,
may be characterized by particular dusters of Meta
Program patterns.
Different kinds of activities require different
sorts of attitudes and approaches. Some activities
require or emphasize the ability to focus on the
micro chunks and details. Others require the abil-
ity to see the big picture. Different phases in the
planning or problem solving cycle of a group or
team may call upon different thinking styles.
Therefore, particular attitudes or clusters of Meta
Program patterns might be more or less beneficial
at different stages ina group's process. Anempha-
sis on results more than procedures might either
bea help ora constraint toa group's functioning at
different times. Some phases might require achiev-
ing consensus, and during other phases, it is im-
portant to encourage differences in perspectives.
Different thinking styles and approaches will
have different values for different types of tasks.
In brainstorming, for example, it may be benefi-
cial to direct thinking in terms of the hig picture
anda longer time frame. For developing plans and
procedures it may be more useful to be focused on
short-term actions. For analytical tasks it may be
more appropriate to logically consider details with
respect to the task, etc.
In this view, managing the process of a group
essentially involves the pacing and leading of the
different Meta Program patterns of the group
members to fill in ‘missing links’ and widen the
perception of the problem or solution space.
Cudtural Differences, Meta Programs and Think-
ang Styles
Froman NLP perspective, many cultural differ-
ences may be described or expressed in terms of
clusters of Meta Program patterns and thinking
styles. Forexample, different cultures tend to value
different representational systems. NativeAmeri-
can culture tends to emphasize kinesthetic and
auditory experience, whereas the European inmuni-
grants who settled North America came from a
culture that primarily emphasized the visual rep-
resentational system. One reflection of this is the
preponderance of visually oriented words in the
English language. Another indication can be found
in the differences in the religious experiences of
the two cultures. Spiritual experiences often arise
from an altered state of consciousness, which is
usually characterized by the least conscious repre-
sentational system. A Westerners religious expe
rience is usually one of "feeling the spirit’ or
“hearing an inner voice." The expectation of tradi-
tional Native Americans is to have a "vision" or
“see the spirit guides." This implies that vision is
not usually the normal experience of the Native
Americans, and that feeling and hearing are less
part of the typical Caucasian way of organizing
the world.
Such core representational system differences
influence other cultural patterns. Consider some
of the key differences between the Navajo and
Western way of thinking. At a Pan-American con-
ference on education, the Navajo participants kept
complaining, "This conference is not getting any-
where. The Caucasians are always under so much
pressure toget things done that nobody ever really
gets the opportunity to tell his or her whole story.
How can we respond to an issue if we haven't
heard all of the necessary voices”
The Westerners, on theother hand, kept saying,
"Look, we're having a meeting here, and we need
touseour time efficiently. There are certain agen-
das that we have, and we need to focus so that we
can move through those issues as quickly as pos-
sible." They continually griped, "Having a meeting
with the Navajo is like hell because it could take
all night long. And it just goes on and on and on.
We don't see the purpose. Nothing ever gets ac
complished.”
From the NLP point of view, the conflict be
tween the two groups arose from cultural differ.
ences and values relating toMeta Program pattems
regarding representational system preferences,
time, task and relationship. The Westerners fo-
cused more on "task! and efficiency, while the Na-
vajo placed more value on "relationship" and
multiple perspectives. The Navajo would say, "It’s
really important to hear the whole story. Every-
kody should have the opportunity to tell his orher
story: Anything worth talking akout at all, ofcourse,
is worth having a meal over." For the Navajo, punc-
tuality was not important. What was important
was that people had the time they needed to com-
pletely address the issues. For the Westerners,
accomplishing the stated agenda in the timeframe
allotted was the highest priority.
With a few Meta Program patterns, it is pos-
sible to sense the essence of a culture, without
having to learn the language or live in the culture
for an extended period of time.
identifying Meta P rogram? attems
Meta Programs may be identified through lin-
guistic cues in the form of key words and phrases.
As an example, consider the following: while at-
tending a class on a particular subject, a student
complains, "I don't feel like putting so much effort
into learning this material because it will be okso-
Jete soon and I don't want to waste my time.” Such
a comment reveals a great deal about the learner's
operating Meta Program patterns. The student's
statement indicates that he or she is oriented to-
ward "feelings," for instance, and is focused on
avoiding perceived negatives (i.e.,"somuch effort"
and "wasting time"). The use of the word "I" also
indicates a strong self-reference ("I don't feel," "I
don't want"). The student's comment also implies
anemphasis on the short term future ("it will be
oksolete soon") and generalities (the student re-
fers to"this material" rather than referring to any
particular aspect of the material).
Meta Program patterns may be stimulated
through questions and cognitive instructions. Meta
Program patterns are often determined as a result
ofself-essessment, using multiple choice questions
which draw out a person's preferences in relation-
ship to a particular context or situation. The fol-
lowing is an exampleof a questionnaire, developed
by Robert Dilts, involving a self evaluation of one's
Meta Program patterns in relationship to inter
personal comnunication.
Example Meta Program Conumunication
Questionnaire
in the groups of statenents below, put «
check by the ones that characterizethe way
youtypically communicatewith others (this
will not necessaniy be the way you think
you ‘should communicated. If more than
one statement fits equaiiy put a check by
the others as weil.
Note If you have diffiadty answering the
questions “in general,” you may want to
think of a partiadar individual or type of
individual as you consider your answers.
12. When conununicating with others it is most
important to pay attention to:
— their internal feelings and reactions.
— their external behavior.
— the external context we are in.
— my internal state and goals.
(Locus of Control)
18. What is most important in effective conunu-
nication?
— Being consistent with who you really are.
— Your values and beliefs.
— Your thinking process.
— Your actions and behavior.
— Your physical environment.
(Level of Focus)
14. It is difficult for me to communicate with
others when I don't understand:
— who they really are.
— what they value and believe.
— how they think.
— what they are doing.
—the physical setting we are in.
(Level of Focus)
15. Rank, from 1-5, the areas you consider most
important toemphasize when communicating
with others:
— achievement
— efficiency
—omsensus
__ profit
—eBrowth
__ productivity
— affiliation
— quality
— ecology
— Other:
(Hierarchy of Criteria)
16. In the oormmnunication contexts listed below
puta'+' by theones that are theeasiest for you
and a '-' by the ones that are most difficult:
— presentations.
— interviews.
—Nnegotiations.
— delegation.
— persuasion.
— discussions.
Exercise: Mapping Across Meta Program
Patterns
One of the values of being able to elicit Meta
Programs is that you can better perceive their
influence on a particular conununication or inter.
action. As with other cognitive capa hilities, people
will sometimes prefer certain Meta Program pat-
terns toothers. And, as with other patterns, this
can be @ source of both strengths and problems.
Sometimes Meta Programs are treated as if they
were a type of NLP "personality theory." The fact
is, however, that they are distinctions relating to
patterns and trends in cognitive strategies, and
are not rigid and unchangeable features of iden-
tity. Clusters of Meta Program patterns can be a
powerful means for understanding and describing
individual and cultural differences in a non-judg-
mental way. They are also useful tools for building
models of individual thinking styles or cultures.
The purpose of Meta Program patterns is to de
scribea general trend ina particularcontext. These
patterns, however, are always flexible and evolv-
ing.
Meta program patterns are often contextually
based, and can shift, depending on the situation.
Like other NLP distinctions, Meta Program pat-
terns can be transferred, or "mapped across,” from
one situation to another in order to create change
or improvement. The following exercise involves
the use of a simple Contrastive Analysis to iden-
tify and utilize Meta Program patterns elicited
from a resourceful state or situation in order to
address a challenging situation.
1 Identify a situation involving decision making,
problem solving or motivation, that you find
personally difficult to manage effectively. Iden-
tify another challenging situation, that is simi-
lar tothe first one, but that you have been able
to manage resourcefully.
2. Create two physical locations for the different
situations, and a third location for a "meta
position.”
3. One ata time, associate into the challenging
and resourceful situations, in order to get a
good sense of how you experience them differ.
ently inside of you.
4. From meta position, contrast the Meta Pro-
gram patterns that are operating in each of the
situations. (You may refer to the questions in
the Communication Questionnaireas a guide.)
How are the Meta Program patterns you are
using in the resourceful situation different from
those of the challenging situation?
5. Step into the resource situation location and
focus on the most important Meta Program
patterns that you are using in that experience.
Create an anchor so that you can easily feel
and remember what it is like to beacting from
those Meta Program characteristics.
Meta Position
derermadlyRefer enced
Resoweetul
Situatioa or State
Problem
Situation or State
Meta Progrem Patterns
Towards Fuser ePositive Arvid Present Negatives
Long-Term Short Zev
Lar geand SuadiChumks Focused on Detaits
derernadlyRefer enced BoernattyRefer enced
Matching endMismatching Mesmatching
Vesion and Logic Oviented Logicand Bmtion Oriented
Meta Program Patterns Can Be Transferred
from One Situation to Another in Order to
Help Create Balance
6. Step over into the challenging situation and
use your anchor to transfer the Meta Program
patterns associated with the resourceful expe
rience into that situation. Notice how your
experience of the challenging situation is
changed and enriched.
Exercise: Inner Circle-Outer Circle
Managing Different Meta Programs and
Thinking Styles
One of the challenges of working with Meta
Programs is addressing a group in which the indi-
viduals have very different thinking styles. People
are often more at ease with one style than others.
It is important for leaders, presenters and teach-
ers to develop the flexihility to switch between a
number of different thinking styles in order to be
ableto understand and direct the process of group
members. The fundamental principles for effec
tively directing the activity of a group toward a
conunon goal are'pacing and leading’ and ‘acknowl-
edging and adding’ with respect to Meta Program
patterns.
It is important to remember that particular
thinking styles arenotsomuch a personality type
as they are an expression of the tendency of an
individual toenact or express a certain attitude or
Meta Program pattern ina particular context. This
tendency is often drawn out by dynamic influences
coming from other group members and the leader
herself or himself. In a dynamic interaction, issues
such as the starting state of the group, and the
natural or ciosen thinking style of the group leader,
influence the subsequent patterns of interaction
(eg., it is not desirable to have either too many
dreamers or critics in a group).
TheI nner Circle—Outer Circle exercise is a “fish
bowl" style exercise that allows people to learn
about and practice recognizing managing differ.
ent Meta Program patterns and thinking styles.
The steps of the exercise include:
1. The purpose of effective communication is pri-
marily to:
— avoid conflicts of relationships.
— develop a good and long-lasting relation-
ship.
— avoid mistakes in getting to objectives.
— achieve positive objectives.
(Approach to Problems)
phasize various combinations of vision, action, logic
or emotion & particular emphasis on one of these
cognitive strategies can produce a general think-
ing style at the level of a group or culture. Vision,
action, logic and emotion are more general expres-
sions of the elements ofa particularcognitive strat-
egy: ie, visualization, movement, verbalization
and feeling. Thinking style is akin to the NLP
notion of "primary" or "most valued" representa-
tional system.
Sununary of Key Meta Program Patterns
1. Approach To Problems
a. Towards the Positive
b. Away From the Negative
2. Time Frame
a. Short Term-Long Term
b. Past-Present-Future
3. Chunk Size
a. Large Chunks-Generslities
b. Small Chunks-Details
4. Locus of Control
a. Internal or ‘Self Reference-Proactive
b. External or ‘Other’ Reference-Reactive
5. Mode of Comparison
a. Match (Simmlanties)-Consensus
b. Mismatch (Dijfferewes)-Confrontation
6. Approach to Problem Solving
a. Task (Achievernent)
1) Choices—-Goals
2) Procedures—Opera tions
b, Relationship (Power; Affiliation )
1) Self-Wy, 1, Me
2) Other-You, His, Their
3) Context-We TheCompany, The Market
7. Thinking Style
a. Vision
b. Action
c. Logic
d. Emotion
A person's Hierarchy of Criteria and Logical
Level of focus can also be considered as Meta Pro-
gram features. A Hierarchy of Criteria is essen-
tially the order of priorities that a person applies
to an outcome or problem. Hierarchies of criteria
relate to the degree of importance or meaning which
people attach to various actions and experiences.
Criteria are essentially values that provide the
motives for action; such as: achievement, power,
survival, efficiency, consensus, profit, growth, pro-
ductivity, affiliation, quality, ecology, etc. Criteria
suchas thesecan determineand reveals lot about
other Meta Program patterns. A person who has
“achievement" at the top of his or her Hierarchy of
Criteria, for instance, is much more likely to be
task oriented than a person who most highly val-
ues “affiliation.” Likewise, a person who focuses
on" power” is more likely to be proactive and inter.
nally referenced than a person who emphasizes
“consensus”; and so on.
Logical Level of focus relates to where a person or
group typically tends to place their attention while
problem solving orplanning a path toa desired state.
Emphasis may be placed on either: environment—
Whee, Wher; behaviors —What;ea pa bilities —H ow;
beliefs and values—Why, identity—Who, or the
system—Who else and ForWhom,
The Logical Level of focus determines the scope
of activity to which other Meta Program patterns
apply. Avoiding something in the environment, is
different than attempting to avoid being some
thing at the identity level. Mismatching behav-
iors is different than mismatching beliefs and
values; and so on. It is also possible to avoid,
mismatch or have an internal reference at one
level, but to approach, match or have an external
reference at another level. Factoring in the Logi-
cal Levels of focus often helps to sort out seeming
discrepancies or paradoxes related to identifying
the basic Meta Program patterns (one can be "ap-
proaching" something at one level, and "avoiding"
something at another level, for instance).
Meta Program Clusters and Group Process
Different problem solving styles and approaches
are characterized by different clusters and se
quences of Meta Program patterns in various ra-
tios. One person's approach might involve an 80%
focus on relationship and 20% focus on task, and
70% emphasis on long-term versus 30% short-term
considerations. Someone else may emphasize the
taskas 90% of the focus and think mostly in terms
of short-term consequences.
Thinking Style Dreamer
Level of Feces What
Representational Vision
reference
Approach Toward
Time Frame Long-Term
Time Orientation Fue
Reference Internal - Self
Mode of Comparison Match
Realist Critic
Way
Action. Logic
Toward Away
Short-Term. Long!Short-Term
Present PasttPurwe
External - Environment External - Others
Match Mismatch
Different Clusters of Meta Program Patterns Combine to Form Different Thinking Styles
Thedifferent clusters of Meta Program patterns
clearly cover different areas of a problem space. In
this respect, there are no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ Meta
Programs. Rather, their effectiveness in connec
tion with problem solving relates to the ability to
apply them to cover the space necessary to ad-
equately deal with a problem or reach a goal. The
different phases of the Disney Imagineering Strat-
ecy (Dreamer, Realist and Critic), for example,
may be characterized by particular dusters of Meta
Program patterns.
Different kinds of activities require different
sorts of attitudes and approaches. Some activities
require or emphasize the ability to focus on the
micro chunks and details. Others require the abil-
ity to see the big picture. Different phases in the
planning or problem solving cycle of a group or
team may call upon different thinking styles.
Therefore, particular attitudes or clusters of Meta
Program patterns might be more or less beneficial
at different stages ina group's process. Anempha-
sis on results more than procedures might either
bea help ora constraint toa group's functioning at
different times. Some phases might require achiev-
ing consensus, and during other phases, it is im-
portant to encourage differences in perspectives.
Different thinking styles and approaches will
have different values for different types of tasks.
In brainstorming, for example, it may be benefi-
cial to direct thinking in terms of the hig picture
anda longer time frame. For developing plans and
procedures it may be more useful to be focused on
short-term actions. For analytical tasks it may be
more appropriate to logically consider details with
respect to the task, etc.
In this view, managing the process of a group
essentially involves the pacing and leading of the
different Meta Program patterns of the group
members to fill in ‘missing links’ and widen the
perception of the problem or solution space.
Cudtural Differences, Meta Programs and Think-
ang Styles
Froman NLP perspective, many cultural differ-
ences may be described or expressed in terms of
clusters of Meta Program patterns and thinking
styles. Forexample, different cultures tend to value
different representational systems. NativeAmeri-
can culture tends to emphasize kinesthetic and
auditory experience, whereas the European inmuni-
grants who settled North America came from a
culture that primarily emphasized the visual rep-
resentational system. One reflection of this is the
preponderance of visually oriented words in the
English language. Another indication can be found
in the differences in the religious experiences of
the two cultures. Spiritual experiences often arise
from an altered state of consciousness, which is
usually characterized by the least conscious repre-
sentational system. A Westerners religious expe
rience is usually one of "feeling the spirit’ or
“hearing an inner voice." The expectation of tradi-
tional Native Americans is to have a "vision" or
“see the spirit guides." This implies that vision is
not usually the normal experience of the Native
Americans, and that feeling and hearing are less
part of the typical Caucasian way of organizing
the world.
Such core representational system differences
influence other cultural patterns. Consider some
of the key differences between the Navajo and
Western way of thinking. At a Pan-American con-
ference on education, the Navajo participants kept
complaining, "This conference is not getting any-
where. The Caucasians are always under so much
pressure toget things done that nobody ever really
gets the opportunity to tell his or her whole story.
How can we respond to an issue if we haven't
heard all of the necessary voices”
The Westerners, on theother hand, kept saying,
"Look, we're having a meeting here, and we need
touseour time efficiently. There are certain agen-
das that we have, and we need to focus so that we
can move through those issues as quickly as pos-
sible." They continually griped, "Having a meeting
with the Navajo is like hell because it could take
all night long. And it just goes on and on and on.
We don't see the purpose. Nothing ever gets ac
complished.”
From the NLP point of view, the conflict be
tween the two groups arose from cultural differ.
ences and values relating toMeta Program pattems
regarding representational system preferences,
time, task and relationship. The Westerners fo-
cused more on "task! and efficiency, while the Na-
vajo placed more value on "relationship" and
multiple perspectives. The Navajo would say, "It’s
really important to hear the whole story. Every-
kody should have the opportunity to tell his orher
story: Anything worth talking akout at all, ofcourse,
is worth having a meal over." For the Navajo, punc-
tuality was not important. What was important
was that people had the time they needed to com-
pletely address the issues. For the Westerners,
accomplishing the stated agenda in the timeframe
allotted was the highest priority.
With a few Meta Program patterns, it is pos-
sible to sense the essence of a culture, without
having to learn the language or live in the culture
for an extended period of time.
identifying Meta P rogram? attems
Meta Programs may be identified through lin-
guistic cues in the form of key words and phrases.
As an example, consider the following: while at-
tending a class on a particular subject, a student
complains, "I don't feel like putting so much effort
into learning this material because it will be okso-
Jete soon and I don't want to waste my time.” Such
a comment reveals a great deal about the learner's
operating Meta Program patterns. The student's
statement indicates that he or she is oriented to-
ward "feelings," for instance, and is focused on
avoiding perceived negatives (i.e.,"somuch effort"
and "wasting time"). The use of the word "I" also
indicates a strong self-reference ("I don't feel," "I
don't want"). The student's comment also implies
anemphasis on the short term future ("it will be
oksolete soon") and generalities (the student re-
fers to"this material" rather than referring to any
particular aspect of the material).
Meta Program patterns may be stimulated
through questions and cognitive instructions. Meta
Program patterns are often determined as a result
ofself-essessment, using multiple choice questions
which draw out a person's preferences in relation-
ship to a particular context or situation. The fol-
lowing is an exampleof a questionnaire, developed
by Robert Dilts, involving a self evaluation of one's
Meta Program patterns in relationship to inter
personal comnunication.
Example Meta Program Conumunication
Questionnaire
in the groups of statenents below, put «
check by the ones that characterizethe way
youtypically communicatewith others (this
will not necessaniy be the way you think
you ‘should communicated. If more than
one statement fits equaiiy put a check by
the others as weil.
Note If you have diffiadty answering the
questions “in general,” you may want to
think of a partiadar individual or type of
individual as you consider your answers.
12. When conununicating with others it is most
important to pay attention to:
— their internal feelings and reactions.
— their external behavior.
— the external context we are in.
— my internal state and goals.
(Locus of Control)
18. What is most important in effective conunu-
nication?
— Being consistent with who you really are.
— Your values and beliefs.
— Your thinking process.
— Your actions and behavior.
— Your physical environment.
(Level of Focus)
14. It is difficult for me to communicate with
others when I don't understand:
— who they really are.
— what they value and believe.
— how they think.
— what they are doing.
—the physical setting we are in.
(Level of Focus)
15. Rank, from 1-5, the areas you consider most
important toemphasize when communicating
with others:
— achievement
— efficiency
—omsensus
__ profit
—eBrowth
__ productivity
— affiliation
— quality
— ecology
— Other:
(Hierarchy of Criteria)
16. In the oormmnunication contexts listed below
puta'+' by theones that are theeasiest for you
and a '-' by the ones that are most difficult:
— presentations.
— interviews.
—Nnegotiations.
— delegation.
— persuasion.
— discussions.
Exercise: Mapping Across Meta Program
Patterns
One of the values of being able to elicit Meta
Programs is that you can better perceive their
influence on a particular conununication or inter.
action. As with other cognitive capa hilities, people
will sometimes prefer certain Meta Program pat-
terns toothers. And, as with other patterns, this
can be @ source of both strengths and problems.
Sometimes Meta Programs are treated as if they
were a type of NLP "personality theory." The fact
is, however, that they are distinctions relating to
patterns and trends in cognitive strategies, and
are not rigid and unchangeable features of iden-
tity. Clusters of Meta Program patterns can be a
powerful means for understanding and describing
individual and cultural differences in a non-judg-
mental way. They are also useful tools for building
models of individual thinking styles or cultures.
The purpose of Meta Program patterns is to de
scribea general trend ina particularcontext. These
patterns, however, are always flexible and evolv-
ing.
Meta program patterns are often contextually
based, and can shift, depending on the situation.
Like other NLP distinctions, Meta Program pat-
terns can be transferred, or "mapped across,” from
one situation to another in order to create change
or improvement. The following exercise involves
the use of a simple Contrastive Analysis to iden-
tify and utilize Meta Program patterns elicited
from a resourceful state or situation in order to
address a challenging situation.
1 Identify a situation involving decision making,
problem solving or motivation, that you find
personally difficult to manage effectively. Iden-
tify another challenging situation, that is simi-
lar tothe first one, but that you have been able
to manage resourcefully.
2. Create two physical locations for the different
situations, and a third location for a "meta
position.”
3. One ata time, associate into the challenging
and resourceful situations, in order to get a
good sense of how you experience them differ.
ently inside of you.
4. From meta position, contrast the Meta Pro-
gram patterns that are operating in each of the
situations. (You may refer to the questions in
the Communication Questionnaireas a guide.)
How are the Meta Program patterns you are
using in the resourceful situation different from
those of the challenging situation?
5. Step into the resource situation location and
focus on the most important Meta Program
patterns that you are using in that experience.
Create an anchor so that you can easily feel
and remember what it is like to beacting from
those Meta Program characteristics.
Meta Position
derermadlyRefer enced
Resoweetul
Situatioa or State
Problem
Situation or State
Meta Progrem Patterns
Towards Fuser ePositive Arvid Present Negatives
Long-Term Short Zev
Lar geand SuadiChumks Focused on Detaits
derernadlyRefer enced BoernattyRefer enced
Matching endMismatching Mesmatching
Vesion and Logic Oviented Logicand Bmtion Oriented
Meta Program Patterns Can Be Transferred
from One Situation to Another in Order to
Help Create Balance
6. Step over into the challenging situation and
use your anchor to transfer the Meta Program
patterns associated with the resourceful expe
rience into that situation. Notice how your
experience of the challenging situation is
changed and enriched.
Exercise: Inner Circle-Outer Circle
Managing Different Meta Programs and
Thinking Styles
One of the challenges of working with Meta
Programs is addressing a group in which the indi-
viduals have very different thinking styles. People
are often more at ease with one style than others.
It is important for leaders, presenters and teach-
ers to develop the flexihility to switch between a
number of different thinking styles in order to be
ableto understand and direct the process of group
members. The fundamental principles for effec
tively directing the activity of a group toward a
conunon goal are'pacing and leading’ and ‘acknowl-
edging and adding’ with respect to Meta Program
patterns.
It is important to remember that particular
thinking styles arenotsomuch a personality type
as they are an expression of the tendency of an
individual toenact or express a certain attitude or
Meta Program pattern ina particular context. This
tendency is often drawn out by dynamic influences
coming from other group members and the leader
herself or himself. In a dynamic interaction, issues
such as the starting state of the group, and the
natural or ciosen thinking style of the group leader,
influence the subsequent patterns of interaction
(eg., it is not desirable to have either too many
dreamers or critics in a group).
TheI nner Circle—Outer Circle exercise is a “fish
bowl" style exercise that allows people to learn
about and practice recognizing managing differ.
ent Meta Program patterns and thinking styles.
The steps of the exercise include:
1. The purpose of effective communication is pri-
marily to:
— avoid conflicts of relationships.
— develop a good and long-lasting relation-
ship.
— avoid mistakes in getting to objectives.
— achieve positive objectives.
(Approach to Problems)
